On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 03:03:15AM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Thereafter, it is up to the registrant to maintain the relevant WHOIS data, and all registrants are pledged to, and expected to do so in a way that causes the WHOIS data to always be accurate. But I did not get any clear sense that RIPE NCC would always and in all cases vet, or re-vet changes made by a registrant to a WHOIS record, post- allocation... and perhaps they routinely do not do so. This would
I don't think so. However, the "organisation:" object is maintained by the NCC and they will revert changes that don't agree with the documentation they have. (Actually has happened to me)
leave open the door to deliberately malicious registrants who might provide all correct contact information initially, and then, a week or a month later, go in and scramble their WHOIS to make it point to something/someone entirely fictitious.
Not possible AFAIK. You can put anything you want in role: and person: objects but the organisation: object is under NCC control. (and if you put fictional info in the objects that refers, you can be sanctioned up to de-registration of resources and closure if a LIR. (cf MoU and service terms)
Registration documents for RIPE resources??? They are??? Where can I view those please?
For corporations: At the appropriate national registrar-of-companies. Usually from their website, depends on the country though. The NCC requires those for the registration of independent resources (cf ripe-556) but I don't know whether they even keep them after checking. For natural persons I think you are out of luck.
In any case, I'm sure I'm not the only member whose idea of what we pay the NCC for is to be a resource registry, *not* an intelligence repository
To be clear, I _do not_ want to bug their homes and/or offices, but anything that _corporations_ have _voluntarily_ given to RIPE should be fair game, and a matter of public record, I think.
This information is not voluntary and given to the NCC on the understanding that it is confidential and used only to verify that a resource holder exists, be it a natural or legal person. It is certainly not "fair game". rgds, Sascha Luck